Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky

LupinoJacky

LupinoJacky (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky/Archive.

19 March 2015

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse oder decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 95.90.207.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.90.207.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.90.207.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 147.172.223.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

This edit has the same style of complaining and accusing as the sockmaster.

The second IP is nearly copying the argumentation of the sockmaster. This edit proves that he is continuing the earlier dispute about Albiana as an allied power (what they were not).

The third IP echoes the same sentiment of poor Albania not recognised as allied power here.

To me, the pattern of POV-editing and claiming that Albania was an allied power in WW2 is clearly and the IPs use the same sentiment and argumentation as the indefinitely blocked LupinoJacky as most clearly visible in his objections against the block. The Banner talk 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition of IP 147.172.223.99: Part of the habit of LupinoJacky was the ignoring of arguments that were unsuitable for his purposes. The IP does the same [1]. And by answering on a remark directed at 95.90.207.220, he makes clear that they are related. Not to mention its editing history, that fits perfectly in the line of editing of the sockmaster. The Banner talk 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

True, there is a content dispute here, which is being carried on in the talk page of the article. The discussion on my side is only dedicated to the historic core of the topic and is based on ethically-correct language and arguments. The opposing editors are using personal accusations and try to block me, because I believe they do not possess relevant arguments for the case. It is true that the opposing party has a majority in number of editors, which is a derivation of the fact that there are significantly more editors with anti-Albanian views than neutral or pro-Albanian views (given that Albania is a tiny country and there are more anti-Albanian users from conflicting countries: Greece and ex-Yugoslavia (Serbia)). This is a politically heated debate and an experienced admin should not fall in the trap of thinking that the truth belongs to the majority of editors (even though I have experienced cases where admins fall in that trap).

Since the issue has moved to a personal dimension, I will personally reply to those editors as well (only for the sake of this investigation). I invite editors to check the core of the topic and the talk page, to see how the anti-Albanian editors persistently try to push their agendas. I can provide with examples of their anti-Albanian theses on other articles:

For instance user Alexikoua is a Greek editors with nationalistic beliefs that promotes Greek nationalistic territorial claims against Albania, such as the "North Epirus" claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Epirus. Please also see how he is obsessed with anti-Albanian theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexikoua .

The other guy, FkpCascais is a Serbian editor with nationalistic beliefs (see his list of contributions), who even dealt with "non-ethical" issues such as praising the high morale of Serbian soldiers during the atrocities conducted against the Albanian civilians in Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War

Finally, TheBanner has a personal obsession that Albania should be listed as an Axis country and constantly pushes in that direction on every related page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers . Unfortunately, he prefers to gang with other anti-Albanian editors and try to block opposing editors through ban requests supported by majority votes on his side, instead of opposing arguments with counter-arguments.

What all those users have in common is that they all frequently deal with Albanian issues, they all have a version of history which conflicts with pro-Albanian historians and they all have NO precedent of ever agreeing with pro-Albanian historians. Is that neutral thinking, I leave it to you to decide?

For me it is perfectly OK for others to have an anti-Albanian thesis, but it is NOT OK to ALWAYS have an anti-Albanian thesis and twist history. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Up to know you failed to prove your case, but with this edit you confirm your sockpuppetry. The Banner talk 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What is provable is that you are not allowed to reply to this section, since this area is dedicated to the defense of the accused party, or/and comments of additional users. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---